Hoi, Milos who do you want to kid ? A new computer with all the trimmings is able to have multiple pieces of software open at the same time, it is able to listen to music, have muliple applications running that contact the Internet and it still performs really well. An old computer may be able to run Firefox or Open Office and it does work on Windows XP or Linux in the same way.
The key point is that there are two demographics and they should not be mixed to make a believable argument. Thanks, GerardM
On Sat, Oct 4, 2008 at 3:15 PM, Milos Rancic millosh@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, Oct 4, 2008 at 11:00 AM, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
When you conflate impoverished and principled readers, you are talking
about
two distinct demographics. The issue is that modern software requires
modern
hardware and when there is no money for software, chances are that the hardware is substandard. This is not the case for "principled" users.
They *can
and do *buy the hardware to run the latest and greatest software.
Modern free software requires hardware old 5 years (surprisingly, contemporary processors are around 2x1.5-2.5GHz, while 5 years ago it was around 1x2-3GHz; 5 years ago ordinary new computers had 256MB-512MB of RAM with a possibility to buy more; now new computers have 512MB-1GB of RAM). A lot of companies have 2 or 3 years of hardware recycling period and older computers are usually donated or sold for small amount of money. You may run very well all important new free software (Firefox, OpenOffice and similar) with 5 years old computer. (Actually, I have 4 years old laptop which works quite fine with the newest software.)
While hardware is some issue, it is much lesser issue to find someone to donate to you hardware or to buy it for 50 EUR/USD than proprietary proprietary software for 500+ EUR/USD (or, even, for a couple of thousands of EUR/USD).
So, while this Gregory's argument is not an absolute one, it is very close to the reality.
An impoverished reader might use skype, a principled reader would not.
One
group is about cost to them and the other is about principles.
Politically
it is expedient to make these group seem to be as one. They are not. It
is
for instance known that Microsoft prefers people to use their software illegally then to have them use other software. It is for this reason
that
the argument that copyright violation is stealing is a lie; when
Microsoft
truly believed this, it would fight illigal software everywhere equally
and
this does not happen.
I don't have anything against anyone who is using "illegal" software. But, I don't want to use it because I am not able to improve that software; as well as I am not able to be sure that my products made by using such software would be supported after some amount of time. Also, I have a limited time in my life and I don't want to spend a lot of time on learning technology which I may have to abandon because of a management decision of some company.
So, we have a lot of practical problems related to adoption of proprietary software -- if we are thinking about our [collective] future.
And about using Skype: Yes, Skype is good enough (but: just because there is no better software) for communication. However, it is not possible to upgrade Skype with your own needs. I am sure that anyone who is working with sound and video is able to find a number of very useful things which Skype is not able to do, while it wouldn't be a big deal to make it if it would be free software.
BTW, Skype is not the only software which is working well for VoIP. Ekiga is working quite well, and it worked very well (as Gnome Meeting) 5 years ago. Actually, it doesn't have daily peaks, like Skype has because communication is a direct one; as well as you may improve Ekiga, while you are not able to improve Skype.
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l